On the post-Keynesian tradition and industrial economics^∗

^∗This is a revised version of a paper prepared for the Review of Political Economy conference held at Malvern 16–18 August 1988. I am grateful to participants at that conference, Philp Arestis, Frederic Lee and Nina Shapiro for comments.

Abstract

In this paper it is first argued that there are significant inconsistencies between industrial economics and neoclassical economics, and that there is a substantial degree of common ground between industrial economics and the postkeynesian tradition. There are, however, some deep-seated differences between post-Keynesian economists over matters such as motivation of firms and the relationship between profits and investment. The nature of competion is discussed and it is argued that the post-keynesian approaches have tended to under rate the role of rivalry. There is then some consideration of the institutional realities of the late twentieth-century industrialized economies. It is argued that there is an essential complementarity between post-keynesian industrial economics (based on imperfect competition) and keynesian macroeconomics, emphasizing that micro-and macroeconomic analyses cannot be separated.

^∗This is a revised version of a paper prepared for the Review of Political Economy conference held at Malvern 16–18 August 1988. I am grateful to participants at that conference, Philp Arestis, Frederic Lee and Nina Shapiro for comments.

^∗This is a revised version of a paper prepared for the Review of Political Economy conference held at Malvern 16–18 August 1988. I am grateful to participants at that conference, Philp Arestis, Frederic Lee and Nina Shapiro for comments.

Notes

^∗This is a revised version of a paper prepared for the Review of Political Economy conference held at Malvern 16–18 August 1988. I am grateful to participants at that conference, Philp Arestis, Frederic Lee and Nina Shapiro for comments.